Poll: What concerns you most about Adobe's move to subscriptions?

Adobe's decision to move to a subscription-based model for its professional creative software has prompted probably the most impassioned response we've ever seen to a news story on dpreview.com. There's a risk that the sheer volume of comments might prevent a clear message being heard, so we've prepared a poll of the most common complaints, to help establish what your biggest concerns are.

While there's every chance you are uncomfortable with a number of aspects of Adobe's decision, we want to know what's most pressing. So please vote for the factor that is of greatest concern to you and we'll communicate the results to Adobe.

Have your say

What concerns you most about Adobe's move to subscription-based software?

Comments

ADOBE WILL TRY TO DELETE YOUR LEGACY APPS!!!! Do NOT let them! They could put you out of business! Here is a tech support transcript, see for yourselves:Vipin: May I have your permission to connect to your computer remotely?ADOBE CUSTOMER: I need to know that NONE of my legacy adobe apps will be affected. CS5 suite and CS6 products will NOT be affected is that right??????????????Vipin: It will be affected. ADOBE CUSTOMER: WHOA! you are saying that my CS% and CS 6 apps will be hurt and not run correctly is that right?Vipin: We need to remove all the Adobe apps installed on your computer. Vipin: Is that okay. Vipin: May I have your permission to connect to your computer remotely?ADOBE CUSTOMER: There is no way I give permission to delete CS5 creative suite, CS6 video production suite or hurt them in any way what so ever. I have THOUSANDS of dollars of plugins and other workflow products that depend on them.

I am concerned that the model provided by Adobe to control price and the way subscribers have to use the software, will be adopted by all the major software giants that will result in squashing innovation and the free market that has been the hallmark of the internet for the past 20 years.

I'm an amateur photographer who has been using Photoshop since CS-2. I upgraded to CS-5 and planned to upgrade to CS-7. At this point I'm hoping to find a legal copy of CS-6 and then ditch Adobe. For a user such as myself, the new payment schedule is more expensive over my typical update cycle, plus I don't have permanent rights to use what I paid for. For a commercial house that requires the latest and greatest, and could care less what happens after they declare bankruptcy, the "cloud" is a good deal. For everyone else, its a slap in the face. Can you tell I'm upset?

I cannot be the only one out there looking at alternatives. My bet is business is picking up at CaptureOne, Corel and DXO. One or more of those will likely soon market a truly decent in-the-box replacement to PhotoShop and Adobe will be trying to "New Coke" their product line. Just saying.

Adobe surveys potential CC customers. Mostly address the right issues, except the single most essential:http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2013/05/30/the-backlash-of-cc-are-adobe-concerned-or-are-they-questionmark

Some folks outside are writing, that all those outraged guys here would just cry because they cannot use pirated versions anymore, why ?

If i read at Adobe CC:2.5GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional free space required during installation.

So even the CC version is writing it's basic stuff on the harddisc - right ?If is is written on the HD, what keeps the crackers from unprotecting and disassembling and removing the relavant SW switches ?

I cannot see any higher level of piracy protection of the CC version here, why should it be safer ?

Reducing the prices for younger people and hobbyists may be the best piracy protection.

I know lots of people dealing with PS but me, all my friends and colleagues really BOUGHT Photoshop, i have spent 950,- Euros last year and now they are treating me like this !!! what the hell......

Nothing keeps. Not only all the latest CC software is already cracked, but you can find it assembled in a thing called "Master Collection CC2014", which does not exist officially. Essentially, it's like the "all in one" many people are used to: Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere Pro, Acrobat Pro, Audition, AfterEffects, Encore, Flash, Muse, InCopy and whatever else products Adobe has... Moreover, software in this cracked pack can be updated as smooth as legit.

As for reduced price, it exists, at least as the special offer. That program is called "Photoshop for Photographers", the package includes Photoshop, Lightroom and Bridge, and costs $10/month plus tax, which allows simultaneous installation on two computers and some number of tablets/smartphones. I'm subscribed, although use only Photoshop, since I never needed Lightroom or Bridge in my workflow (I'm pro), they are both too slow and useless for me. Also there is and always was student discount, they say it's "up to 60%".

Strange enough, PSD format is backwards compatible to even pre-CS versions (7 at least... It's a problem now to find any older to check). As for other things, Premiere Pro projects and InDesign files are and were always editable only in the versions they were created in, or later (you can't open InDesign CS 6 document in CS 5.5 without saving it in another format). Illustrator offers save to older versions since I can remember (like v.5... just 5, not CS5), and still supports that feature: you can save Illustrator artwork (and Illustrator EPS) into any Illustrator format all the way back to Japanese Illustrator 3, even in CC2014. JFYI, Illustrator 3 was already considered obsolete way before many of current Adobe users were even born. Of course, there are some real compatibility issues sometimes, but they are about gradient mesh, interactive features, some brushes, etc. Never had any problems saving logos to AI 10 EPS format for other people to use (print shops, customers, etc.).

As for PDF, modern format iterations support things like "Fast Web View" and interactive, but when I design books and other things, I export it from InDesign to plain PostScript and then distill it to PDF compliant to PDF-X/2001, which is the strictest standard compatible to absolutely anything, even the most conservative print shops, which still use software, hardware and techniques from the times long passed. Before two years ago I myself used Acrobat Distiller 5 from mid-1990s along with PostScript-only fonts (PFB/PFM)... it still works with Windows 7 at least and without any trouble, if you manage to find the installer somewhere online. And you can save PDF to any iteration down to Acrobat 4.0, while even the most ignorant places you can find Acrobat Reader at, use at least 7.0.

Except almost none of the work would be done on the cloud. I think Adobe's being idiotic with this plan too, but the point about the cloud not being work on the cloud has been made repeatedly in these comments since day one.

It's that one has to pay/checkin once every 30 or 99 days.

No Adobe has not explained how someone on the monthly pay plan who is about to travel without a web connection would pay for a few months in advance, so as to have a way of avoiding having to pay again while traveling for say 70 days.

Some of these questions are being answered and in some cases the mechanics of the situation may not be bad. What I don't like is the entire approach that Adobe has taken, sort of we decide, you like it or you're screwed. I'm getting old, to the point that I don't mind updating software occasionally, but I hate like hell to pay monthly for something I don't have the energy to use. This is aimed almost entirely at sucking more money on a continuing basis from people working in the trade. As a retiree I've continued to be interested, but my guess is that this is the end of the line for Adobe as a high end consumer product as well as professional. Now all they have to do is p--- off the pro and advertising users and they'll kill the goose.

oh great anonymous guys in those facemasks.. if you can hear our pleas for help.. please help us by jamming adobes servers indefinitely til they surrender and change their stupid subscription policies please and thank you and much appreciated - from all of us...we salute you..

Corel's special pricing offers for CS users are still good for a while, too: http://www.corel.com/corel/pages/index.jsp?pgid=14900014

This will to some degree, have a bit of an effect on whether some decide to buy upgraded cameras or stick with what they have. Those who "bought" CS6 but who won't get new Camera Raw updates will be hesitant to upgrade cameras now as they may not wish to use the maker's bundled software or Lightroom, etc. Adobe's decision will in fact, have a domino effect like this - what remains to be seen is how many dominoes wind up falling.

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Adobe , but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A. "

Just had another thought about this CC b*llocks- if in the future Adobe decide to abandon a program- like they did with GoLive for instance, presumably if you have it via CC the program will stop working and you will be unable to keep using your own creative files? Will a program they stop including in the CC package cease to work?

The insidious thing about CC is that - although it does not require 24/7 internet connection to work, nevertheless, CC does require regular checkups via internet to check that your software is legitimate. As for your question, if Adobe kills off a piece of software, you'd hope Adobe would keep up that old software on CC with the ability to have online checkups. BUT -- and here's the big BUTT - what happens if Adobe killed off your software to force people to get their new software. Adobe aren't in this at all to please you. They would want to force you onto their new latest thing. So, with Adobe, imagine the worst scenario, and if you're prepared for that, you can't be far wrong.

The adobe execs attended a seminar that was sponsored by the server farm industry, convincing them that this is the future. Autodesk is headed this way, with $5000 software packages... but there is a huge difference between that, and something mainstream like adobe products. This move is quite naïve, and quite frankly, stupid. I predict that some of Adobe's upper management won't be around anymore next year... and if they still are, it'll only if they own the company, but nevertheless less rich as a result of their move.

What AutoDesk doesn't get is that there are serious design alternatives to their software. So if someone there insists that subscriptions are the only way, makers of better, still expensive, software will celebrate. All better than AutoCAD and much else offered by AutoDesk, in no particular order: Solidworks, Rhino, Vectorworks, Ashlar. And I'm sure there are more.

As an Australian I can not see what the fuss is all about. We have been getting screwed for years with "Price Fixing". This subscription idea actually sounds pretty good to me. I will be saving hundreds of dollars a year. Check out this thread on Digital Photography School. I totally agree. http://digital-photography-school.com/say-goodbye-to-adobe-creative-suite-adobe-moves-to-the-cloud.

Hi Nmphoto: you had only three posts on this forum but didn't share as much concerning photography nor about image processing in PP, and you work all day long as an office worker. No offense but let me tell you it's a little strange to give a right appreciation from this...Regards.

Now: Part of the problem may, that's "may", be that PhotoNinja has to build a library from whatever folder the raws are in before it processes any raw from that folder, but if that folder has say 200 raws, PhotoNinja may get distracted.

Anyhow, Photoshop CS6 and Bridge CS6 are much faster, even when working together.

PhotoNinja does a good job, but it not going to be taken seriously if it remains this slow and resource hogging.

So Adobe has proven itself not worthy of trust, that's a good reason Lightroom is being ignored, PSE too. Also the combination of PhotoShop and Bridge has a much better reputation than Lightroom alone.

If I were going to buy or use a new raw capable camera in say May 2014, I'd very much budget for having to purchase CaptureOne. And I've learnt that yes Nikon's freeware ViewNX2 does good raw extraction for Nikons.

(As it stands now PhotoNinja is too slow and hogs too much of the system; this all may change in the next 12 months.)

I don't trust Adobe at all. Look at the Flash mess and they've made a hash of a fair number of other things. I've had Photoshop for 14 years, having been reluctant to undertake learning yet another difficult software. I've been using Lightroom, primary as a cataloger -- it's a difficult transition to move to editing in Lightroom as opposed to editing from Lightroom into Photoshop. The piracy complaint is nutty. If that's happening, it's coming from networked large users who are hacked at Adobe. It's too much trouble to hack the password on Adobe single user. I recall a much earlier Photoshop that had an equivalent to today's Bridge, so Adobe had to break it and it took another three releases before they got it right. Now they're breaking it again.

Whoever came up with the idea for the subscription model, and everyone at Adobe who supports it, are going to run their company into the ground. By now it should be obvious to Adove that by a wide margin, people do not support the idea. Look at the poll. It's almost 96% against. Are you really going to stay the course, Adobe?

Some, including me, feel viscerally about this move. Even if Adobe reverses course, I feel I've just had it with getting nickel and dimed to death. I feel that strongly about it. So no more purchases from Adobe from me. Already, I have Aperture, Pixelmator and Capture One. Oloneo is another great piece of software that I plan on getting in the near future. I am already on a course away from Adobe software.

I am an amateur photographer. I have Photoshop CS6. I do not have Lightroom. I want to continue using PS CS6 in the future and not subscribe to Photoshop CC. Therefore, Camera Raw in my PS CS6 will not be updated for future Nikon cameras (which I am sure I will be buying).

Question. If future versions of Lightroom continues to be available on disc, and future Lightroom versions recognize future Nikon camera NEF raw files, would I be able to develop the raw files in lightroom, save them as PSDs, then open these PSDs in PS CS6?

If this is the case, and that is a BIG IF, then this scenario (buying future Lightroom versions and using PS CS6 for edits, composites, masking, etc.) is my solution to not buying into the CC.

"ALWAYS" is a hard thing to confirm. The big A may always change policy, as they have demonstrated on various occasions. Still, there are a great many ways to convert RAW files, starting with the manufacturer's proprietary software.Dunno about Canon but Nikon View and Capture are at least two alternatives, not to speak of various third party solutions such as DxO and Capture One, amongst various others...

Capture 1 Pro is the best RAW program on the planet period. Conversion of RAW files is a breeze with it. It has been the program of choice for high end pros for many years for capture in studio and conversion. Anyone could use it confidently to work on their RAW files. For other creative editing purposes, I would keep your CS5 or CS6.

At present you can open from Lightroom into applications other than Photoshop, i.e. I can open into several apps including Topaz which can work standalone. I'm going to continue using Lightroom, but my guess is that I'm having long term trust issues with Adobe. I had Aperture but found it overpromoted, overpriced (at the time) etc., and it didn't transition smoothly into photoshop to me.

Here is a little story for you... One upon a time a great company had a wonderful product the world loved and they decided to change it. The world soon let them know it was a terrible idea. They returned the original product and lived happily ever after... The company Coca-cola.

Adobe is trying to create a steady revenue stream with subscription based software. It may open up for a lot of new people who will jump in to get their hands on some professional quality software but a lot of folks (as proved by your poll) will balk at this idea. They do not wish to be forced into a subscribe base software. We don't know how or when prices will rise or shutter to think we let it laps and have to pay a restore fee some where down the line. Just like the "New Coke", it's a bad idea and we just don't like the taste of it (pun intended).

New Coke was a disaster not from a marketing point of view, but from a product point of view. Being: it tasted awful. Believe me, I might have launched it in the Netherlands, if not because of this prob.Apples and Pears, IMVHO.

It's not entirely inappropriate to compare Coke and Adobe or if you will, Apple and Adobe. Both Coke and Adobe are marketing disasters. As someone noted, Coke wanted to introduce Corn Syrup or whatever else into the Coke line. Part of that was competing with Pepsi which was already sweather. Coke not only lost its flavor to me, it lost it's feel. Cornsyrup moves across the mouth differently and there's still less tartness. I use Diet Coke for Rum and Coke because it tastes better.

As for Apple, They've developed a model Adobe ought to consider. Apple doesn't have to ship software, it's mostly download. And the price is moderate enough that people are not pushed to practice piracy. And updating the OS every year means it doesn't become the disaster that Microsoft has created for itself with people trying to go back to Windows 95 or something else, but without the drivers needed.

Adobe has moved to a download model already, but now they want to take our freedom of operation away.

Coke from Mexico, it's made with cane sugar, and Coke specifically made for Passover, again cane sugar, both taste better.

If you live in the US, I hear that Costco has the Mexican stuff in glass bottles, it's also available in stores in big cities.

Apple's download only model isn't bad, but Abode was already going that way.

(And I think it wrong to imply that the software for Mac is less expensive, some of the stuff downloaded from Apple may be a bit cheaper, but not say if you want to download new CAD software for your Mac from a CAD software company.)

> same about apps for W7 or android both of which now use similar distribution systems?You right, same things. But we already knew where the "clouds computing" wants to bring us, no? Making consumers totally captives imho. Adobe and Mac it's not quite different. since we know Adobe is an historic partner of Apple.What's goes wrong with Adobe, and from now on with any app's stores, is you pay licences REPETITIVELY, for many things: PostScript printers, fonts, PS part of OS, softwares and so on, it's robbing us. But if you stop using it, you must buy a new licence the next you need it (embedded, no matter if you already paid many times: for that, if your peripherals are died hard by "built-in-obsolescence...") yeah it's robbing us! from the V1.0-1990 (Mac) 1982 for PostScript. It's also illegal imho

I mixing up distribution and licensing because it's the CORE of same buisness: MAKE MONEY based on customers asservissment

No it still doesn't make sense. Please give me an example of an app from the app store which stops working after a month or tell me which features of my OS stopped working since I sure as hell haven't noticed it refusing to start up with the dialogue box about paying for next months use.

The only possible analogies I can see are1, movies rented through ITunes, which we are clearly offered a temporary licence to view2, things like itunes match, which is simply online storage / sync and the original files are still on your computer.

As I said below I have no problem with people complaining about companies but at least complain about things which are real and don't use outright inaccuracies to spread an opinion which clearly cannot be backed up by you.

Rant over, Im now going to go and work on the mac, which according to you should have stopped working a month after I bought it! Good job no one told the laptop that!

Yes, you got it, what Adobe does it's worst. But if we accept the system of downloadable apps, It's the same because it's like putting the finger inside the same system, pushing people using cracked softwares and so on. As I said before, it removes responsibility from people.

In the other hand, what does Apple it's also worst with the iPad, equipment that you pay but can't be usefull for what you looking for (unfriendly OS, not a really usefull USB port to connect an hard drive nor USB key, so you have the best screen ever to visualise your shots from your DSLR but with many limitations, no ethernet port nor friendly connection between Wifi–ethernet, no shortcuts equivalent with OSX, binding OS to sale apps back, no opportunities to open .doc nor .pdf documents, and so on) so what...? It's a sort of commercial totalitarism, it's a shame.

OK - I started out giving you the benefit of the doubt but now I am convinced you are simply trolling. You continue to not answer my questions and cannot give examples when challenged. You misrepresent facts and complain when things do what they were meant to do / don't do what they aren't meant to do. If you are using the ability to buy downloadable apps as an excuse to pirate and crack software then you have absolutely no sympathy from me.

If you cannot give justifications, fact and reasoned argument then I am not going to waste anymore of my time.

I answering what I want to answer and what I can. I'm not necessary require "sympathy" from someone using syllogisms to flaming people, because they simply pretending not to understand the value of a sort of moral sense in business (maybe what mostly wants to call "trolling", here, hé héé!).Please read again answers from other people here, THEY talk about using cracking software as a consequence of what Adobe does, NOT ME.

Question for the more experienced users here with RAW images. I am looking at buying a Nikon D7100 soon, and I was wondering about software to be able to load those RAW images and convert to JPG.

Right now, I have an Adobe CC academic subscription @ $20/month for everything. I am debating whether to continue with it once the year is up. I am finding myself using Pixelmator 2.2 more than Photoshop CS6 lately.

I'm just wondering about software for RAW images, since I am somewhat disturbed by what Adobe is doing now with the Creative Suite. Nikon has software on their Web site for this camera - is it any good?

Answering to the original Q, if you are coverting limited amounts of RAW (NEF) files, the Nikon software is a very good solution, especially in terms of IQ.NX2 is free while Capture demands a shell-out of a about $ 180. Keep in mind that Nikon are following similar policies as the big A, meaning that you will have to upgrade Capture every once awhile.Although View NX2 is free and - in spite - very good IQ wise, its interface sucks...http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2009/09/07/raw-converter-acr-phaseone-nikon-compare

We can bitch and moan all we want about Adobes switch to a subscription model but they will not listen. They will however listen if we do not use it. If people do not sign up and find alternate products then Adobe will be forced to change back.

This is also an opportunity for a competitor to take serious market share away from adobe by introducing a real rival to it that we all can use. Im thinking Phase One can use this to upgrade Capture One into a full editing software.

Looking at the absolutely overwhelming number of negative responses that the Adobe bombshell has caused. This will probably go down as the biggest corporate blunder in photographic history. Serves them right!

Still, shares are up. Do you believe a few "nagging" small fry customers or the market?Affirmative action seems appropriate...http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog1.php/2013/05/16/adobe-creative-cloud-vacas-lecheras-para-criminales-creativos

From memory shares in Facebook were through the roof when they first came out...and price dropped considerably not long after when most people realised there was no substance in them. With Photoshop... my personal opinion is that it will be a long term thing before we will see the consequences of their action in the share market.

By the by. Adobe does not live by Photoshop alone. Only half its revenue comes from "Creative Solutions" a category that apart of PS includes graphic design (Indesign, Illustrator), web development (Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash) and video post production (Premiere), amongst others.The Acrobat family is in a category of its own (Knowledge Worker), and is likely the biggest single revenue generator for Adobe (they don't disclose revenue by product)http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-adobe-revenue-2010-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Adobe_software

To sum this up: they're probably not overly concerned by a bunch of "nagging" PS and LR users...Sorry.

I'd go even one further. Any company that wishes to survive and thrive in the XXI Century needs to concentrate on its customers needs and wants, whatever the niche they may be in, as well as innovation and creativity.What does that tell you about the future of big A?

I was walking down the street the other day and I saw something interesting and I decided to take a photo of it. After turning on my Sony NEX-7 I got the following message on the screen: "Access to this Camera has been denied, please contact Subscription Services!" What the ....! Worse yet is that I was unable to download from the camera any images I'd already taken.

After rushing home I contacted Subscription Services, or "SS", whereupon they informed me that the $1200 camera that I bought a year ago now will not function without a monthly subscription fee! First Adobe and now Sony?! I hastened to my closet where my Canon and Nikon gear were vaporizing, apparently because I had failed to pay a continuing fee to those companies as well!

I woke up in a start! It was only a dream - or was it? Borrowing a theme from Apples' 1984 commercial, we need the hammer wielding athlete to come crashing in and hurl her hammer at the "Orwellian" face of Adobe! NO SOFTWARE FOR RENT! EVER!

Oh, by the way, the CC sync service has been down for a few days now. Of course, Adobe doesn't communicate this via their site, as it still says services are online. But customer support and Adobe officials in the forums acknowledge the problems. Wow. What a great service. Guess we should just get used to it...

All the creative directors, illustrators, designers, and photographers that I work with are discussing how to move away from Photoshop so they can protect their assets WITHOUT having to be tied to a service that they can't control.

To Just a Photographer:Corel's Aftershot Pro is available in a native Mac version and is a worthy competitor to Lightroom.

Suggestion: If you try or buy it, pick the open file folder system option rather than the proprietary catalog format. Avoid proprietary file systems so as to avoid lock-in. I'm still trying to find a way of mass jailbreaking my photos from Mac's Snow Leopard iPhoto. The Tiger iPhoto version left my photos in standard folders, but the new version gave me the proprietary shaft. Jailbreak help requested!

Right click (or control click) on the IPhoto library and choose "show package contents". Navigate to masters and you should find them in folders ordered by date. If you want to have them in groups of event names thou will need to rename the files in IPhoto with an event name before you do this (from memory I thing you can give a group of files an event name and append them with a number fairly easily however I haven't used IPhoto for a while - I use aperture now. I will see if I can confirm the renaming for you.

As Apple does, they use our money of licenced guys who paid for a friendly workflow environment to develop and promote something totally unfriendly for the rest of us, and what desserve our cause...! Then only for do more money.

(permanent-subscription-based model, net-boot apps downloadable only through the clouds and so on)

only for doing more money without any sens of ethic nor educational way of thinking.

Sorry but this analogy with apple that you and seemingly quite a few other people are making is crazy (and incidentally why don't you say the same about apps for windows 7 or android both of which now use similar distribution systems?).

You are mixing up a method of distribution and a method of licensing. Changing a distribution method if fine for me - I can re-download the file whenever I wish without repaying as long as its with my apple ID, I pay once and I don't need to repay to use the same stuff again. Personally I haven't used my CD drive for years. The point of the Adobe model is that you effectively get a licence to use the software for one month after which you need effectively to buy it again.

I have no issue with people complaining about Apple / IBM / Microsoft / Adobe /insert any other company here butif you wish to make analogies try comparing like with like and don't twist facts.

As a test I got the trialware of ACDSee and its raw extraction is nowhere near that of ACR. I own Aftershot/Bibble, with the Noise Ninja addition, and that's only as good as ACR with some cameras. I don't own DXO, but I've tried it and I have the same problem as Aftershot; DXO isn't bad but it's not ACR. Yes, I've tried CaptureOne and that seemed very promising, now that Adobe has supplied this great motivation I'll try C1 again.

The only things that I've seen that are close to ACR are CaptureOne and the new and odd, and resource hog, PhotoNinja.

No, don't have a Mac so can't use Aperture.

I don't want to read about UFRaw, DCRaw, Rawtherapee.

(Yes, I know I can still buy a real license to the resource hog Lightroom.)

Now: Part of the problem may, that's "may", be that PhotoNinja has to build a library from whatever folder the raws are in before it processes any raw from that folder, but if that folder has say 200 raws, PhotoNinja may get distracted.

Anyhow, Photoshop CS6 and Bridge CS6 are much faster, even when working together.

PhotoNinja does a good job, but it not going to be taken seriously if it remains this slow and resource hogging.

Just downloaded and installed GIMP and am totally blown away by what this program can do! I've been using Photoshop for over 20 years and can say right now I will never go back. Gimp is capable of doing 90% of everything Photoshop can and it's free. It is so much more customizable and friendly than Adobe. I would imagine with all our support it would become the quintessential editing program. In combination with capture one 7 there is no more need for Adobe's BS. Gimp works on both Windows and Mac.

I use GIMP and Photoshop side by side. For generic Pixel Manipulation I prefer Gimp. However, a few features are still painfully missing for me:a) Panorama Stitchingb) HDR Photo MergeThese are functions which could be added with a plugin. And I would be happy to pay for those. I hope this will be recognized and plugin vendors such as Photomatix make their plugins also available for GIMP. Once that happens I will let go of Adobe Photoshop.

If you are interested in a good photographic workflow w/o monthly payments, or a strategy to move to an adobe free workflow, you may find this Article interesting: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3167814967/rfc-good-photographic-workflow-wo-monthly-cost

If something is missing in the Article, please post a comment and I will research and add it.

If this Article has been useful to you, please press like so that others with the same interest can find it easier.

Here is an Article on how to regain a good photographic workflow w/o monthly cost ( w/o Adobe Cloud ):* http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3167814967/

After the new License policy of Adobe came out it was clear to me that I need to change my workflow. But I was not sure how. Should I change immediately to other SW packages and if so which ones ? If I change now, would would be the consequences ? How much would I loose ? Is there a smarter way to improve ? How can I solve the problem that I am completely locked into Adobe Apps with no freedom to change to other Apps without loosing all my work ? How can I keep using my Adobe CS in the future w/o the cloud. The deeper I dug the more questions and problems surfaced. When discussing my questions with others I found out that many have the same concern and are doing the same research, everyone for himself. This Article is an attempt to save others some research work to others and with a bit of luck offer ready made solutions.

I guess we are all wrong here. ADOBE is happy to get a rid of hobbies and semi profi istockers, who buy once, do not upggrade for 5 years, do not need new features, use 30% of PS potential, do not need any cload gigs for team work. We are pain in the ass for them.

They don't want to get rid of anyone, they want to own our @ss.PS is finished for years and everyone owning a copy of PS is fine with it. And so they came up with ideas like 'only camera's are supported in the newest CS-whatever'. But that wasn't enough, they know they have a problem, and that is maintaining a continuous money-flow for a product that has been finished years ago and won't sell itself anymore. And so they have puzzled on a system that will suck everyone into a system which we can't leave anymore without serious consequences (not been able to use your own files anylonger, not owning the software anymore). It is a huge gamble for them, and you bet they are keeping their fingers crossed that this trick will work out for them, because as far as I can tell, it ain't lookin so good for Adobe's CC-fairytale.

If you think they don't need the 'amateur'. Then you are forgetting who made Photoshop BIG in the first place.

Only after it had a large userbase it became the defacto standard.

As soon as this large userbase falls away for Adobe they will loose market share and some other software company will take over. They then will become the new 'standard' and Adobe will vanish and will be entered in the books of companies that went broke due to bad management and lack of customer support.

I agree with Danny. It's not only the "amateurs" they're screwing.Also, this discussion has been centered on PS and LR.However, anyone who runs Illustrator, InDesign, Fireworks, Flash or Dreamweaver for a living is also toast.Those are the pros who design books, brochures and what more, have a 16 bit workflow to assure correct RGB - CMYK conversion (4 color pre-press) and for that, my friends, there is NO alternative.Moreover, at least where I live, PDF has become the defacto prepress standard file format, and InDesign, Illustrator and PS can all output to CMYK PDF, meaning that we need Acrobat for all our pre-press work.Supposing that Adobe will go on with their criminal scheme, all of us who make a living with any of these products either take it up the you-know-where, or will be driven out of business.SIGN THE PETITION: https://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

Sorry to oppose your comment but pro’s do NOT need some gimmicks like “shake-filter” etc. Pro-photographers are after image which comes from camera not Photoshop. Pro-photographers rules by saying S...in S...out. “Shake-filter” will not come to rescue trust me!Photoshop is fantastic piece of software, very much indispensable in some cases however truth is, that some top photographers are still using versions like SC2 even earlier.Who buy latest such as cameras and software are naive amateurs which fill conference rooms in large numbers just to be told, that they need it and it is a necessity for them to have.

ADOBE is playing a game. ADOBE’s cloud concept is certainly great thing but price structure for Photoshop CC concept is rubbish!

By Gerard JP : I am opposing RE : "ADOBE is happy to get a rid of hobbies and semi profi istockers, who buy once, do not upggrade for 5 years, do not need new features, use 30% of PS potential, do not need any cload gigs for team work. We are pain in the ass for them."

Who buy 72% of DSLR cameras are amateur photographers. This may give you an idea who is after Photoshop the most.

Something I notice is that a lot of people are comparing PS with RAW converters. PS is converting, image editing AND retouching, and especially the last part is what PS separates itself from converters. If you are converting RAW images, I honestly thing you have no problems finding an alternative, c'mon. If you do heavy retouch work on 16bit images and perhaps work in CMYK color mode, THEN you'll need some serious good alternatives THAT WILL HAVE THESE SPECIFIC FEATURES! So, Lightroom is NOT an alternative for Photoshop.

Did I already said 'Screw Adobe with their CC'? OK, here, I said it again, screw them.

Correction, I mean: Aperture, Capture One Pro, dxo-optics are NOT alternatives for Photoshop.

If you are just processing and applying some filters YOU DON'T NEED PS! On the other hand, if you do heavy retouch work, illustration work (CMYK) and photo manipulation in high-res 16bit format THEN YES(!) the Adobe's CC move is a serious issue. Unless you already own a copy PS CS-whatever, then just use it until the end of times. I am fine with my copy of CS5 and have all the time to do my research and buy a copy of the competition and slowly move my workflow over to theirs.

I already switched to Aperture from Lightroom. It was actually pretty easy and painless since I did not invest much in LR anyway. Now I'm looking at the different alternatives to Photoshop - but I'm in no hurry, CS6 will last me for a few years until a real good competitor comes up and wipes the floor with Adobe.

Just for those who consider their current CS "eternal license" versions as a future proof guarantee, consider the following.3 Years ago my C drive died on me. I replaced the drive and - as a consequence - was forced to reinstall the OS and all applications. As I was running CS1 on this system, the activation process balked: "You cannot activate this software, because it is already installed on 2 other systems", which was not true, of course, because I was just reinstalling the software on exactly the same system just with another C-drive. I called Adobe and they gracefully granted me a license to reinstall.

JM67 has a good idea, or he steered in the right direction regarding RAW converter test of the past.

I think that if Dpreview is on most folks side regarding this issue, they should do a good article comparing "Photoshop Alternatives" as well as RAW converter software, so folks will know exactly what's out there. People are aware of a handful but I'm sure there are others that we typically don't think of.